Oh, those progressives

Who can figure out where they stand?

December 12, 2005|By Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant

Before we get too wound up in gratitude and wonderment that the sheepish Chicago City Council has discovered democracy by actually debating and deliberating, and then enacting, a "compromise" smoking ban, some observations are required:

- Chicago's democracy isn't the sort that Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams had in mind. With aldermen experiencing the torture being applied by powerful opposing lobbyists, it was more like the democracy practiced in Washington and Springfield. To be kind, call it special-interest democracy. For entertainment value, though, it was fun to watch anxious aldermen trying to decide which lobby they could more safely afford to anger.

- In the end, the aldermen put their training wheels back on. Having fallen down one too many times trying to learn how to ride, they turned, as is their habit, to sachem Richard M. Daley for a deal that would give everyone cover. Daley gave the nod, and magically, the vote was 46-1.

Still, it was a good stab at democracy. Despite widespread doubt that it could happen, democracy actually arrived, however momentarily, in Chicago before Baghdad. Yet, Chicago's attempt at democracy also must be judged by the quality of the results.

No need here to rehash the problems that make this smoking ban ridiculous: enforcement, the unleashing of no-smoking posses, loss of business to the suburbs, arrogance. Most non-smokers are ambulatory; they can choose to depart smoky bars. That's what this non-smoker does.

For smoking-ban enthusiasts, choice isn't enough. Too many people are too ignorant, stupid or weak to watch out for themselves. "This is for everyone's good! Personal choice must give way to the greater good. Secondhand smoke kills people. Our mission is to protect innocent people."

How liberal. How progressive. That's how progressives think. For example: They always call on government to restrict individual choices when an abortion threatens the life of an unborn baby. Oops, bad example. Progressives demand absolutely no restrictions on reproductive choices. The fetus/unborn baby must die.

OK, then how about this? Progressives believe that the law should "empower" families by making them an integral part of the support mechanism for any member having an abortion. Oops, another bad example. For true-blue progressives, the family has no right to even know about an abortion in the family. Thus, they passionately oppose laws requiring notification of parents or husbands of an impending abortion. Spousal or parental consent is absolutely out of the question.

I'm sure I can find something. Here: Progressives fight for the right of wives to know when they are "at risk" for getting an HIV infection from their husbands. HIV carriers don't have a right to keep this information secret and infect whomever they choose. Thus, progressive code requires that everyone applying for a marriage license must have an HIV test.

Uh-oh. Can't do that either. Illinois' brief experiment with mandatory HIV testing when applying for a marriage license was junked because of opposition from progressives. It had something to do with individual privacy rights and losing marriage-license revenue to non-testing neighboring states.

Let's see. Here's one: Progressives are spreading the alarm that black women are being disproportionately infected with the AIDS virus. Progressives insist that government intervene on the women's behalf, through mandatory tracing of infected sexual partners. What's that? Wrong again? Progressives believe that the tracing is a violation of privacy rights? You mean government should just stand by and let people die? You mean conservatives, not progressives, correctly predicted 15 years ago that black women were most threatened if government tossed out proven public health measures to prevent the spread of HIV?

Well then, surely the progressive health agenda at least requires the confidential reporting of the names of HIV-infected people to public health officials so they can more accurately measure the extent of the AIDS epidemic and focus resources on the greatest need. Just as enlightened public-health policies require that other contagious diseases, such as syphilis and tuberculosis, be reported.

Progressives, of course, passionately reject any suggestion that they would let people suffer or die from AIDS rather than let them be stigmatized for having it. They're for a balance between individual rights and the greater good.